Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
02-13-2009, 06:41 AM
Post: #1
Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord

This universe is infinite. I am unable to show the existence of these super worlds to you. I accept my incapability. But you are also incapable to prove directly the non-existence of these super worlds. Have you taken all over the universe and said, " Here ends the universe. Beyond this point there is no universe. This is the compound wall of the space. Your super world does not exist anywhere’’. Therefore, there is equal chance for the existence and non-existence of the super worlds according to the theory of probability.

Now let us analyse of our cases. Both of us are eating to live. The basic needs are satisfied in the cases of both of us. You have spent extra time also in earning more money, which may give you some problems of health like sugar, B.P etc., due to over enjoying. I have not earned more money and I am healthy due to normal food. None of us will carry the money with us after death. The money given to the children may also be lost in several ways. Therefore, I do not find much difference between us, once the basic needs are satisfied. I am poor because I have spent my extra time in the service of God.

Suppose after my death, you are correct and there are no super worlds. In such case what I have lost? There is no loss for me. But after your death, suppose I am correct and there are super worlds. You have lost every thing and God will not save you. Thus, even on accepting your argument, based on the equal probability, it is better to serve the Lord by sacrificing the extra time and energy for the Lord after earning the basic needs. You must read the theory of probability, which is perfectly a scientific theory.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2009, 04:30 PM
Post: #2
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
There are two fallacies in this argument. The first is the "you can't prove a universal negative" fallacy. You are right. You cannot prove the non-existence of heaven and hell. But we can say that there is no evidence of heaven and hell anywhere, and thus we can infer that the likelyhood of heaven and hell existing is very small. When an idea is so beleaguered by fact that it has to fall back on the universal negative, it is for all practical purposes disproven. The giant squid argument (people believed there were no giant squids, then one was found), is likewise invalid, as there was some evidence of giant squids, just not much. Furthermore, there was evidence of many strange deep-see creatures, and we knew that we had not discovered all of the deep-ocean species. In the case of heaven and hell, however, there are no similar states that we have identified, there is no inference that they exist, and thus the only proof they have is "well you cannot prove they do not exist."

The second fallacy is Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager requires that God's existence be a coin toss. Fifty-fifty, a chance that God exists, or a chance that he doesn't. However, our understanding of the universe around us makes it very unlikely that God exists, so the risk of God existing is cut down tremendously. Furthermore, we have absolutely no way of determining which God exists, so equal opportunity must be given to all. For many religions, that includes a God who does not send you to hell, so those can be lumped in with the atheist contingent, further increasing that chance. As for the others, new boxes must be made, because it is not enough to believe in God, you must believe in the correct God or you still go to hell.

I really, really hate to quote Richard Dawkins, but in one case he's absolutely right. If you live via logic and reason, you will actually live a more fulfilled, happier life, whereas if you live life constantly oppressed by a religion you will not. Thus, the wager becomes, do I live a life as happy and fulfilling as I can, and thus run an infinitesimal chance that a God who has chosen not to show himself in any scientific manner exists and might get mad at me, or do I live a life according to arbitrary rules and fear that hamper my happiness and fulfilling, in order to gain an infinitesimal chance to escape hell ASSUMING that I picked the right God, of which I have no guarantees?

Finally, I leave you with a quote from Terry Pratchett's book "The Hogfather":

Quote:A philosopher claimed, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When the philosopher died, "he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'"
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 02:06 AM
Post: #3
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
(02-13-2009 04:30 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Furthermore, we have absolutely no way of determining which God exists, so equal opportunity must be given to all. For many religions, that includes a God who does not send you to hell, so those can be lumped in with the atheist contingent, further increasing that chance. As for the others, new boxes must be made, because it is not enough to believe in God, you must believe in the correct God or you still go to hell.
[/quote]


Which God?

God is unimaginable and - cannot be served directly.
There is no other way than – to serve mediated God.
Buddha is also misunderstood – as an atheist by followers.
Buddha kept silent about God, – silence means unimaginable.
Silence does not mean that – God is non-existent, Veda says
That words cannot touch God, – only silence indicates God.
Shankara says that God is best – explained through silence.
All religions can be correlated, – since there is one God only.

The concept of one God – should be proved first of all.
Then only correlation of – the scriptures of all religions.
Without the basic establishment – of the point of one God,
If you correlate scriptures, – correlation may be coincidence, since
Some times unity may exist – in speeches of different speakers.
This will not bring unity in – all the religions of world for peace.

If one God is proved first, - all religions must be united subsequently.
Shankara united sub-religions – in Hinduism and brought peace.
Hinduism in those days was – like the present fighting religions.
Shiva, Vishnu, Ganapati, Shakti – Skanda and Surya were Gods.
Their followers were fighting – like the present religious followers.
Yesterday-Hinduism represents – today-Universal Religions.
Today-Hinduism represents – tomorrow-united religions.
Shankara brought unity in Hinduism – similarly Datta will bring
Unity of Universal Religions – through analytical arguments.

God stressed certain aspects – especially in various religions.
Pickup those central diamonds – and prepare a garland with them.
That will be our Universal Spirituality – for the peace of world.
Hinduism is famous for unity – in diversity of various aspects.
Christianity is famous for kindness – even for sinners to uplift.
Islam stands for sincerity and – strict discipline towards God.
Buddhism is for controlling desire – in the service to society.
Jainism is for kindness to – all living beings in this world.
Similarly you can pick up – gems from various other religions.
Science is also a religion – to analyze non-God items of world.
Shankara united various – branches of single religion, Hinduism.
Then India stood as spiritual guide – for all Indians themselves.
Today all religions of world exist – in India, Datta unites them.
Now let India stand as spiritual guide – for all religions in world
To unite all citizens of the world – to achieve world peace.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 02:12 AM
Post: #4
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
(02-15-2009 02:06 AM)dattaswami1 Wrote:  If one God is proved first, - all religions must be united subsequently.

All religions? Really? Even the church of Banjo, God of Puppets? What about Jeff, God of Biscuits? The church of the Highfather? The cult of Cthulu? The Church of Zarquon, and all its sects (my favorite, of course, being the Fish Friars and the Chip Monks)? Scientologists?

You cannot simply say all religions are true. Some are quite obviously made up.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2009, 10:21 AM
Post: #5
There is no Hindu heaven, Christian heaven, Islamic heaven etc.
(02-15-2009 02:12 AM)GTseng3 Wrote:  
(02-15-2009 02:06 AM)dattaswami1 Wrote:  If one God is proved first, - all religions must be united subsequently.

All religions? Really? Even the church of Banjo, God of Puppets? What about Jeff, God of Biscuits? The church of the Highfather? The cult of Cthulu? The Church of Zarquon, and all its sects (my favorite, of course, being the Fish Friars and the Chip Monks)? Scientologists?

You cannot simply say all religions are true. Some are quite obviously made up.

First of one must understand that, there is only one God. The division are made by men not God. God appeared different parts and regions and religions of the world in human form and preach the same concept suiting to the situation in different language and culture. But the essence of all religions are the same. For this same purpose only God is coming again and again in human for to this world to unify the various religions through proper interpretation of various scriptures of the world, since the same God told all the scriptures of all the religions.

There is no Hindu heaven, Christian heaven, Islamic heaven etc.
God gives value for the spiritual knowledge contained in the religion. Religion is the external cup and spiritual knowledge is the internal material supplied to the customer in the hotel. The customer pays for the internal material and not for the external cup. The sweet Payasam in the cheap ceramic cup will have high payment. The cheap drinking water given in costly golden cup has no payment at all. The customer takes the material only and not the container. Similarly, the spiritual knowledge alone follows the soul from birth to birth and not the religion. When the external body is left over here, the soul raises up in a new energetic body. The soul in the new energetic body is associated with the spiritual knowledge alone but not with the religion. A Christian after leaving the external body does not remember that he is Christian. Similar is a Hindu, Similar is a Muslim, Similar is the human being of any religion.

When the soul goes up, it stands before God and is enquired irrespective of its religion. Only its service to the world under the guidance of God is counted. Just like you come out of the hotel with the Payasam in your stomach, leaving cup in the hotel, you will go up along with spiritual knowledge leaving the religion in this world.

Only the good and bad works done by you will have the corresponding fruits, whatever may be your religion. There is no Hindu heaven, Christian heaven, Islamic heaven etc. There is only one heaven to enjoy the fruits of your good deeds. Similarly, there is no Hindu hell, Christian hell, Islamic hell etc. There is only one hell to enjoy the fruits of your bad deeds.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-16-2009, 04:06 AM
Post: #6
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
(02-13-2009 04:30 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  There are two fallacies in this argument. The first is the "you can't prove a universal negative" fallacy. You are right. You cannot prove the non-existence of heaven and hell. But we can say that there is no evidence of heaven and hell anywhere, and thus we can infer that the likelyhood of heaven and hell existing is very small. When an idea is so beleaguered by fact that it has to fall back on the universal negative, it is for all practical purposes disproven. The giant squid argument (people believed there were no giant squids, then one was found), is likewise invalid, as there was some evidence of giant squids, just not much. Furthermore, there was evidence of many strange deep-see creatures, and we knew that we had not discovered all of the deep-ocean species. In the case of heaven and hell, however, there are no similar states that we have identified, there is no inference that they exist, and thus the only proof they have is "well you cannot prove they do not exist."

The second fallacy is Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager requires that God's existence be a coin toss. Fifty-fifty, a chance that God exists, or a chance that he doesn't. However, our understanding of the universe around us makes it very unlikely that God exists, so the risk of God existing is cut down tremendously. Furthermore, we have absolutely no way of determining which God exists, so equal opportunity must be given to all. For many religions, that includes a God who does not send you to hell, so those can be lumped in with the atheist contingent, further increasing that chance. As for the others, new boxes must be made, because it is not enough to believe in God, you must believe in the correct God or you still go to hell.

I really, really hate to quote Richard Dawkins, but in one case he's absolutely right. If you live via logic and reason, you will actually live a more fulfilled, happier life, whereas if you live life constantly oppressed by a religion you will not. Thus, the wager becomes, do I live a life as happy and fulfilling as I can, and thus run an infinitesimal chance that a God who has chosen not to show himself in any scientific manner exists and might get mad at me, or do I live a life according to arbitrary rules and fear that hamper my happiness and fulfilling, in order to gain an infinitesimal chance to escape hell ASSUMING that I picked the right God, of which I have no guarantees?

Finally, I leave you with a quote from Terry Pratchett's book "The Hogfather":

Quote:A philosopher claimed, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When the philosopher died, "he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'"

I agree with what you have said, but my question is: What is your definition of God?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-16-2009, 08:24 AM
Post: #7
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
That's a good question. With most of the people I debate (Christians and Muslims on these boards), the definition of god is a powerful, advanced entity that created the world and continues to guide that same world, who has placed our souls in peril if we do not follow his rules. The definition of god is different in other religious. Many polytheistic religions allow for very small or limited gods. Some religious allow for a "god-in-all" approach, or a "we-are-all-god" approach. Then I would argue that it's just semantics, and what they're talking about isn't god at all. But if they want to call it god, fine.

Personally, the studies I have done have shown me that gods are mythical creatures created by societies in order to explain the unknown, then codified into religions by the power-hungry in order to perpetuate their authority.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-16-2009, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 06-16-2009 05:33 PM by Anglican.)
Post: #8
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
(02-13-2009 06:41 AM)dattaswami1 Wrote:  [size=large]Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord

This universe is infinite. I am unable to show the existence of these super worlds to you. I accept my incapability. But you are also incapable to prove directly the non-existence of these super worlds. Have you taken all over the universe and said, " Here ends the universe. Beyond this point there is no universe. This is the compound wall of the space. Your super world does not exist anywhere’’. Therefore, there is equal chance for the existence and non-existence of the super worlds according to the theory of probability.

The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, and since then it has been expanding at a finite rate for a finite amount of time. So how come it is infinite? The volume of the universe is estimated to be 4.4 x 10^34 cubic light years.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-16-2009, 07:16 PM
Post: #9
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
That is the volume of the matter in the universe, which is not the same thing as the universe. There is currently some debate as to the nature of the universe's infinity (does it just stretch on forever? Does it loop back on itself? Does it fold through space?) But it is infinite, so far as we have been able to determine.

Modern science more or less assumes that the universe has existed forever and will exist forever, and extends forever. At the very least we've seen no evidence of an "edge", which would not make much sense anyway as we know of no process that would put such an edge there. The matter and potential energy in the universe, on the other hand, is a different story.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-21-2009, 09:17 AM
Post: #10
RE: Hell, Heaven and Kingdom Of Lord
(06-16-2009 07:16 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Modern science more or less assumes that the universe has existed forever and will exist forever, and extends forever. At the very least we've seen no evidence of an "edge", which would not make much sense anyway as we know of no process that would put such an edge there. The matter and potential energy in the universe, on the other hand, is a different story.

The Big Bang Theory is very well entrenched in science. It has the universe beginning in an unknown fashion 13.7 billion years ago. The details of this and the supporting evidence are very well known. There are speculations that could restore the no beginning aspect, e.g. eternal inflation, which has this universe arising as a sort of bubble from a ‘sea’ of prior universes. But the inflation concept is still not well defined, although very tempting. And no one has come up with a satisfactory way of turning the multi-verse idea into a falsifiable hypothesis, without which it is not yet science.

Of course, the debate of whether or not there is beginning of time misses the point. The real question is what causes existence itself and in particular the specific details of existence we experience. Putting one’s ‘faith’ in the existence of a first moment of time or in a prior eternity does not answer that question one way or another.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)